I’m curious who you consider to be a progressive in US politics.
And i do mean curious genuinely. I’m a communist so I don’t have a very high opinion of what counts as “progressive” in the US. I do think there wouod be a voter base for what could be called a Progressive Party in the US but i don’t see any leadership. Most espousing “progressive” positions would turn their backs on them the minute they could actually come true, or whenever they have to put their money where thier mouth is. Kamala Harris and the entire progressives caucus cime to mind.
I’d like to hear your opinion on possible leadership though. And i won’t attack it as we both know I’ll disagree before hand lol - I’m just genuinely curious how a non-communist views it
Frankly I’m not sure what the leadership would look like. It would start as the progressive caucus, but it would naturally evolve from there based on the voters.
I think the reason many current ‘progressive’ leaders abandon progressive policies has more to do with our current political paradigm than personal flaws of the leaders.
If there were a progressive party with a progressive base it would make progressive policies key to getting votes.
Okay, i can see the logic there. I also agree that its not about individual leaders having personal faults so much as the current political paradigm. I also agree that there would be a voter base for a progressive party. There’s cerainly popular support for every proposed progressive policy in the US. Just M4A we know was widely popular across the country. Theres also been demonstrated that there’s a grassroots donor base for a progressive party as we saw in Bernie’s campaigns.
The real question that i think you should try to answer is given that there’s broad support for these policies, and there’s both a voter and donor base - Why does it not exist?
Liberals look at this question and blame the people. They blames voters. They blame the voting system and the two party stranglehold. Then they advocate for ranked choice and third parties.
Marxists consider the material basis of the system first and surmise that it doesn’t exist because it wouldn’t serve the interest ruling class. That liberal democracy is not democracy for the majority of people- the working class - but a democracy for the ruling class and both parties exist to serve their interests. This is why we can’t get M4A - the most broadly supported policy proposal in the country. It doesn’t matter that most people want it because it does not serve the interests of the ruling class.
It seems to me like the two versions aren’t mutually exclusive. A better voting system that allows for more parties would undoubtedly lead to more parties winning votes, but such a reform would also run against the interests of the ruling class.
I mean, there’s many nations with more than two parties, including progressive parties, but I don’t see a reason why that’s more in line with the ruling class there than here.
It’s not so much about blame to my mind than it is about the way systems feed into each other.
However you slice it, whatever prior conditions you see as most important, replacing the republican party with one left of democrats would be a huge improvement.
I understand why you see things that way because you’re a liberal and not a Marxist. Reform makes sense if you come at these problems from the perspective of liberalism. The problem is that the it really isn’t an issue of systems feeding into each other - it is the system- liberal democracy and who controls and why it exists in the first place that’s the issue.
You bring up good questions about why liberal democracy looks different in Europe than the US. There are a lot of reasons for that, but what matters is that liberal democracy performs exactly the same function in Europe as it does in the US. It doesn’t matter if theres one party or twelve, ranked choice or first past the post. I’m not argueing that one or the other isn’t better, i just don’t think it matters whether the system of bourgeois rule is slightly better or not.
I’m curious who you consider to be a progressive in US politics.
And i do mean curious genuinely. I’m a communist so I don’t have a very high opinion of what counts as “progressive” in the US. I do think there wouod be a voter base for what could be called a Progressive Party in the US but i don’t see any leadership. Most espousing “progressive” positions would turn their backs on them the minute they could actually come true, or whenever they have to put their money where thier mouth is. Kamala Harris and the entire progressives caucus cime to mind.
I’d like to hear your opinion on possible leadership though. And i won’t attack it as we both know I’ll disagree before hand lol - I’m just genuinely curious how a non-communist views it
Frankly I’m not sure what the leadership would look like. It would start as the progressive caucus, but it would naturally evolve from there based on the voters.
I think the reason many current ‘progressive’ leaders abandon progressive policies has more to do with our current political paradigm than personal flaws of the leaders.
If there were a progressive party with a progressive base it would make progressive policies key to getting votes.
Okay, i can see the logic there. I also agree that its not about individual leaders having personal faults so much as the current political paradigm. I also agree that there would be a voter base for a progressive party. There’s cerainly popular support for every proposed progressive policy in the US. Just M4A we know was widely popular across the country. Theres also been demonstrated that there’s a grassroots donor base for a progressive party as we saw in Bernie’s campaigns.
The real question that i think you should try to answer is given that there’s broad support for these policies, and there’s both a voter and donor base - Why does it not exist?
Liberals look at this question and blame the people. They blames voters. They blame the voting system and the two party stranglehold. Then they advocate for ranked choice and third parties.
Marxists consider the material basis of the system first and surmise that it doesn’t exist because it wouldn’t serve the interest ruling class. That liberal democracy is not democracy for the majority of people- the working class - but a democracy for the ruling class and both parties exist to serve their interests. This is why we can’t get M4A - the most broadly supported policy proposal in the country. It doesn’t matter that most people want it because it does not serve the interests of the ruling class.
It seems to me like the two versions aren’t mutually exclusive. A better voting system that allows for more parties would undoubtedly lead to more parties winning votes, but such a reform would also run against the interests of the ruling class.
I mean, there’s many nations with more than two parties, including progressive parties, but I don’t see a reason why that’s more in line with the ruling class there than here.
It’s not so much about blame to my mind than it is about the way systems feed into each other.
However you slice it, whatever prior conditions you see as most important, replacing the republican party with one left of democrats would be a huge improvement.
I understand why you see things that way because you’re a liberal and not a Marxist. Reform makes sense if you come at these problems from the perspective of liberalism. The problem is that the it really isn’t an issue of systems feeding into each other - it is the system- liberal democracy and who controls and why it exists in the first place that’s the issue.
You bring up good questions about why liberal democracy looks different in Europe than the US. There are a lot of reasons for that, but what matters is that liberal democracy performs exactly the same function in Europe as it does in the US. It doesn’t matter if theres one party or twelve, ranked choice or first past the post. I’m not argueing that one or the other isn’t better, i just don’t think it matters whether the system of bourgeois rule is slightly better or not.